DeMOCKERYcy

They say the three things you shouldnt talk about in polite company are sex, politics and religion. Well i owe an essay on god and religion and no doubt i'll get around to sex soon, so lets start the trimester of impolite conversation with the political arena.


So here goes. I'm not trying to turn this into a campaign. I'll say straight out now, yes, i am voting for the labor party on August 21st, but that shouldn't interfere with what i'm trying to get across here. This is not a debate over the pro's and cons of the Liberal and Labor parties. Frankly, i don't see the point because as far as differences go, there are very few. Neither side have any astonishing new platforms or policies, nor does either side have a leader that genuinely stands out. The stances of the two parties are so interwined it is difficult to untangle the threads. The 'radical left-wing' Labor party has decided to implement an internet filter. While i am 100% against this, i do not believe in it strongly enough to write long angry blog posts in 512 different shades of red to show how pissed i am. But what got me was, this 'progressive, moving Australia forward party' was proposing internet censorship and the 'conservative' party is saying they will not censor the internet. I knew the differences between party platforms were getting less and less, but what i just witnessed was a complete role reversal.

This is not a political first. During the American Civil War, the Democrats were considered the red-necked, backwards party with it support base in the deep South. The Republicans were the free-thinking intellectuals opposed to slavery. 150 years later... Well lets just say George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are both Republicans. The idea then that the Liberal and Labor party should not only begin to merge on policy, but to swap roles is therefore quite possible. One thing that has always annoyed me about the Liberal party is the name. By definition, to be "liberal" with something is to be "not conservative", so naturally, Australias foremost CONSERVATIVE party is the LIBERAL party. Maybe the swap has already happened before, and they forgot to change the name?

Anyway, besides the mis-match policies that are equally as promising and similarly empty, my next bone is the politicians themselves. Tony Abbot summarised it nicely when he claimed that he could nto be trusted because he was a politician. It provided a nice soundbite for the media, but it did not hurt him in my eyes. Politicians these days have not only the old problems of "they'll say and do anything to get re-elected", which in many cases is true, but politicians are rapidly losing their balls (And no, that is not a dig at Julia Gillard or the Liberal Julie's). I mean that noone stands up for what they believe anymore. In my opinion, public opinion polls are responsible for the biggest political deficiency. Noone wants to do anything unpopular. I understand that democracy is based on the will of the people (ill get to democracy in a minute) and that popular representation should dictate the actions of the government. But am i the only one who is sick and tired of political parties and politicians basing their policies on what is popular, instead of what is right or what is necessary. I realise these are subjective terms but i believe there is a truth to what i'm saying.

My golden example here is the case of K-Ruddd. I confess to being a K-Rudd man, but not because of the T-shirts and the tacky slogan. Not only because of what he did as PM, but because of why he did it. Noone said he needed to apologise to the Aboriginals. Most people old him not to. But he did, because he felt it was the right thing to do. I know a lot of people were not fans of Rudd, so i wont harp on about him, but i think what Rudd had, that Gillard and Abbott both do not have, and what cannot be denied even by his critics, is that despite his faults, K-Rudd was his own man. He did not run his campaign on how popular he was, but on what he thought needed doing during his (shorter than expected) time as PM. Thats what i look for in a politician. Someone who can bravely announce what he stands for, and do it, strongly and proudly, instead of bending in the breeze, depending on which way the wind of support is blowing.

And my final thoughts on Democracy as a process. While there is a lot to be said for monarchies, juntas and dictatorships (law and order, security, no red tape or bureaucracy) i would much prefer to live in a democracy. But no system is perfect. Watching interviews with some of the people at Rooty Hill last night, i was reminded about the major flaw int he Democratic process to my mind.
The best thing about Democracy: Everyone has an equal say.
The worst thing about Democracy: Everyone has an equal say.